Guest guest Posted September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 Dear Greg, I'm a bit perplexed to find you and Ramesh engaging in the traditional, yet contradictory distinction between someone who knows *it* and someone who doesn't know *it*, based on whether or not there is an experience of anxiety present (Contradictory in his case because he repeatedly emphasizes that there is no one there to know or control "what is as is", and in your case because you have emphasized that no particular experience is more 'enlightenment' than another). In my perception, this checking to see whether or not there is anxiety for someone involves a self-conscious observer with criteria for evaluating the perceived, whether that perceived be understood as oneself or someone else. The judging of some kind of "final knowing" without "fear or desire" that Jean Kline apparently promoted, seems to depend on evaluating expressions of anxiety or lack of anxiety and thus partakes of a subject/object split, the split forming around conceptualized criteria of evaluation. One concern is that when expressing no anxiety is given priveledge over expressing anxiety, we are led to valuing an emotionally supressive stance as somehow closer to truth or reality than an expression of anxiety. Is not truth simply "what is"? Why then assume that one expression somehow reflects "a better understanding" of what is, if there is not one apart to understand it? As you yourself have alluded, if "what is" is placed at arms' length, all sorts of mischief follow. Do not criteria based on whether or not anxiety arises constitute at least an arm's length? With criteria such as "anxiety vs. no anxiety", is not the world coming to be divided into those who know and don't know reality, those who have and don't have the "final understanding", whatever that is supposed to be, those who supposedly experience no anxiety and those who do, those whose "I" has left and those who have an "I" -- on and on in the realm of "spiritually-splitting reality" ... I know that you have said that the idea of an experiencing being or person is itself the limitation that is transcended with awareness (or words to that effect - correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly). So, it seems contradictory when you then make statements that support evaluations of experiencing beings. I suppose one could assume that you are playing a word-game, and for one who "knows the secret" that there are no experiencing beings, the word-game wouldn't apply. Still, does not the engagement in, and perpetuation of such word-games, simply reinforce whatever tendencies one's audience has to construe the world in a subject-object split? It seems to me, Greg, that your statements here don't mesh with the logic you used in the enjoyable paper you referred us here to read, in which you discussed how *it* or "enlightenment" couldn't be assumed to be a particular kind of experience. (Certainly, the experience and expression in which there is no anxiety is a particular kind of experience and expression). Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave and not come back could only be evident if there were someone there who could ascertain that an "I" left and didn't come back, and could evaluate someone else whose "I" came back. Who would this observer be, along with criteria for judging an "I" that comes and goes -- if not itself an "I"? It seems to me that if the "I" has gone, something has gone that never really was. If so, then there are no criteria to be maintained for evaluating self or others (for such self never was, to be evaluated, nor is here, to maintain criteria), regarding whether or not an "I" is present, or has come or gone -- and particularly not to maintain evaluations that expressions of anxiety show that something has not been attained, and that nonexpression of anxiety is to be presumed to be superior, evidence of some kind of attainment, final understanding, or whatever. Namaste and love, Dan >>>Greg: Yes, I know someone she confided in later in her life. She basically was reporting fear and confusion, wondering how that fit in with what Jean Klein and others had told her about her experiences. According to what she believed, fear should have been impossible, and so should doubt. Jean Klein defines IT partly as the end of fear and desire. And her fear wasn't fear of disease or death, but the cosmic anxiety of the human condition, plus fear about the rootlessness of this no-self that had been going on. I never talked to Ramesh about her story, but I do know some of the criteria he uses in deciding whether he thinks people have "the final understanding," as he calls it. And I think it might have been her articulation of doubt, and the coming/going of her important experiences that made him say, "That's not it." If the sense of self or of doership leaves and comes back, after however so long an absence, Ramesh calls it a "flip-flop" or "free sample" -- and not yet IT. He's right about that - if you *really* go away (that is, *really* see that you weren't ever there), then you CAN'T come back. There'd be nothing left to keep track and establish that it's the same one who left. So if it seems you are coming back, then you never truly left! Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 Dear Dan, Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I appreciate your asking the obvious questions. Your point below is well made. "Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave and not come back could only be evident if there were someone there who could ascertain that an "I" left and didn't come back, and could evaluate someone else whose "I" came back. Who would this observer be, along with criteria for judging an "I" that comes and goes -- if not itself an "I"? Love Harsha d b [dan330033] Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:29 PM Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety Dear Greg, I'm a bit perplexed to find you and Ramesh engaging in the traditional, yet contradictory distinction between someone who knows *it* and someone who doesn't know *it*, based on whether or not there is an experience of anxiety present (Contradictory in his case because he repeatedly emphasizes that there is no one there to know or control "what is as is", and in your case because you have emphasized that no particular experience is more 'enlightenment' than another). In my perception, this checking to see whether or not there is anxiety for someone involves a self-conscious observer with criteria for evaluating the perceived, whether that perceived be understood as oneself or someone else. The judging of some kind of "final knowing" without "fear or desire" that Jean Kline apparently promoted, seems to depend on evaluating expressions of anxiety or lack of anxiety and thus partakes of a subject/object split, the split forming around conceptualized criteria of evaluation. One concern is that when expressing no anxiety is given priveledge over expressing anxiety, we are led to valuing an emotionally supressive stance as somehow closer to truth or reality than an expression of anxiety. Is not truth simply "what is"? Why then assume that one expression somehow reflects "a better understanding" of what is, if there is not one apart to understand it? As you yourself have alluded, if "what is" is placed at arms' length, all sorts of mischief follow. Do not criteria based on whether or not anxiety arises constitute at least an arm's length? With criteria such as "anxiety vs. no anxiety", is not the world coming to be divided into those who know and don't know reality, those who have and don't have the "final understanding", whatever that is supposed to be, those who supposedly experience no anxiety and those who do, those whose "I" has left and those who have an "I" -- on and on in the realm of "spiritually-splitting reality" ... I know that you have said that the idea of an experiencing being or person is itself the limitation that is transcended with awareness (or words to that effect - correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly). So, it seems contradictory when you then make statements that support evaluations of experiencing beings. I suppose one could assume that you are playing a word-game, and for one who "knows the secret" that there are no experiencing beings, the word-game wouldn't apply. Still, does not the engagement in, and perpetuation of such word-games, simply reinforce whatever tendencies one's audience has to construe the world in a subject-object split? It seems to me, Greg, that your statements here don't mesh with the logic you used in the enjoyable paper you referred us here to read, in which you discussed how *it* or "enlightenment" couldn't be assumed to be a particular kind of experience. (Certainly, the experience and expression in which there is no anxiety is a particular kind of experience and expression). Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave and not come back could only be evident if there were someone there who could ascertain that an "I" left and didn't come back, and could evaluate someone else whose "I" came back. Who would this observer be, along with criteria for judging an "I" that comes and goes -- if not itself an "I"? It seems to me that if the "I" has gone, something has gone that never really was. If so, then there are no criteria to be maintained for evaluating self or others (for such self never was, to be evaluated, nor is here, to maintain criteria), regarding whether or not an "I" is present, or has come or gone -- and particularly not to maintain evaluations that expressions of anxiety show that something has not been attained, and that nonexpression of anxiety is to be presumed to be superior, evidence of some kind of attainment, final understanding, or whatever. Namaste and love, Dan >>>Greg: Yes, I know someone she confided in later in her life. She basically was reporting fear and confusion, wondering how that fit in with what Jean Klein and others had told her about her experiences. According to what she believed, fear should have been impossible, and so should doubt. Jean Klein defines IT partly as the end of fear and desire. And her fear wasn't fear of disease or death, but the cosmic anxiety of the human condition, plus fear about the rootlessness of this no-self that had been going on. I never talked to Ramesh about her story, but I do know some of the criteria he uses in deciding whether he thinks people have "the final understanding," as he calls it. And I think it might have been her articulation of doubt, and the coming/going of her important experiences that made him say, "That's not it." If the sense of self or of doership leaves and comes back, after however so long an absence, Ramesh calls it a "flip-flop" or "free sample" -- and not yet IT. He's right about that - if you *really* go away (that is, *really* see that you weren't ever there), then you CAN'T come back. There'd be nothing left to keep track and establish that it's the same one who left. So if it seems you are coming back, then you never truly left! Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger http://im. /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 These were biographical and conventional and passing points I was making, phrased along the terms of Kheyala's question about Suzanne Segal. There was no nondualist's police cap on, no attempt (in that message!) to allay concern over the distinction between this experience and that. There was no attempt to ramp that particular interchange up to a distinctionless pointing, or to use language free from reference to entitification. Just a conversation. Love, --Greg At 09:12 PM 9/9/01 -0400, Harsha wrote: >Dear Dan, > >Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I appreciate your asking the obvious >questions. Your point below is well made. > >"Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave >and not come back could only be evident if >there were someone there who could ascertain >that an "I" left and didn't come back, and >could evaluate someone else whose "I" came >back. Who would this observer be, along >with criteria for judging an "I" that comes >and goes -- if not itself an "I"? > >Love >Harsha > > >d b [dan330033] >Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:29 PM > > Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety > > >Dear Greg, > >I'm a bit perplexed to find you and Ramesh >engaging in the traditional, yet contradictory >distinction between someone who knows *it* and someone >who doesn't know *it*, based on whether or >not there is an experience of anxiety present >(Contradictory in his case because he repeatedly >emphasizes that there is no one there to know or >control "what is as is", and in your case because you >have emphasized that no particular experience >is more 'enlightenment' than another). > >In my perception, this checking to see whether or not >there is anxiety for someone involves a self-conscious > >observer with criteria for evaluating the perceived, >whether that perceived be understood as oneself or >someone else. > >The judging of some kind of "final knowing" >without "fear or desire" that Jean Kline >apparently promoted, seems to depend on evaluating >expressions of anxiety or lack of anxiety >and thus partakes of a subject/object split, the >split forming around conceptualized >criteria of evaluation. > >One concern is that when >expressing no anxiety is given priveledge >over expressing anxiety, we are led >to valuing an emotionally supressive stance >as somehow closer to truth >or reality than an expression of anxiety. >Is not truth simply "what is"? >Why then assume that one expression somehow >reflects "a better understanding" of what is, >if there is not one apart to understand it? > >As you yourself have alluded, if "what is" > is placed at arms' length, all sorts of > mischief follow. Do not criteria based > on whether or not anxiety arises constitute > at least an arm's length? > >With criteria such as "anxiety vs. no anxiety", >is not the world coming to be divided into >those who know and don't know reality, those >who have and don't have the "final understanding", >whatever that is supposed to be, those who >supposedly experience no anxiety and those >who do, those whose "I" has left and those >who have an "I" -- on and on in the >realm of "spiritually-splitting reality" ... > >I know that you have said that the idea of >an experiencing being or person is itself >the limitation that is transcended with >awareness (or words to that effect - correct >me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly). So, >it seems contradictory when you then make >statements that support evaluations of >experiencing beings. > >I suppose one could assume that you are playing >a word-game, and for one who "knows the secret" >that there are no experiencing beings, the >word-game wouldn't apply. Still, does not >the engagement in, and perpetuation of such >word-games, simply reinforce whatever tendencies >one's audience has to construe the world >in a subject-object split? > >It seems to me, Greg, that >your statements here don't mesh >with the logic you used >in the enjoyable paper you referred us >here to read, in which you discussed how *it* >or "enlightenment" >couldn't be assumed to be a particular kind of >experience. (Certainly, the experience and >expression in which there is no anxiety >is a particular kind of experience and expression). > >Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave >and not come back could only be evident if >there were someone there who could ascertain >that an "I" left and didn't come back, and >could evaluate someone else whose "I" came >back. Who would this observer be, along >with criteria for judging an "I" that comes >and goes -- if not itself an "I"? > >It seems to me that if the "I" has gone, >something has gone that never really was. >If so, then there are no criteria to be >maintained for evaluating self or others >(for such self never was, to be evaluated, >nor is here, to maintain criteria), regarding >whether or not an "I" is present, or has >come or gone -- and particularly not to >maintain evaluations that expressions of >anxiety show that something has not been >attained, and that nonexpression of anxiety >is to be presumed to be superior, evidence >of some kind of attainment, final understanding, >or whatever. > >Namaste and love, > >Dan > >>>>Greg: >Yes, I know someone she confided in later in her life. >She basically was reporting fear and confusion, >wondering how that fit in >with what Jean Klein and others had told her about her >experiences. According to what she believed, fear >should have been >impossible, and so should doubt. Jean Klein defines IT >partly as the end of fear and desire. And her fear >wasn't fear of disease >or death, but the cosmic anxiety of the human >condition, plus fear about the rootlessness of this >no-self that had been going on. I >never talked to Ramesh about her story, but I do know >some of the criteria he uses in deciding whether he >thinks people have >"the final understanding," as he calls it. And I think >it might have been her articulation of doubt, and the >coming/going of her >important experiences that made him say, "That's not >it." If the sense of self or of doership leaves and >comes back, after >however so long an absence, Ramesh calls it a >"flip-flop" or "free sample" -- and not yet IT. > >He's right about that - if you *really* go away (that >is, *really* see that you weren't ever there), then >you CAN'T come back. >There'd be nothing left to keep track and establish >that it's the same one who left. So if it seems you >are coming back, then you >never truly left! > > > >Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger >http://im. > > >/join > > > > > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, >perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside >back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than >the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. >Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is >where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal >Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously >arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > >/join > > > > > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Namaste Sri Gregji, I am not part of the nondual police but do enjoy looking at various forms of self-justifications. In this case, it just happens that Ramesh is the one we are looking at. I have always considered Ramesh to be a fairly minor teacher. One of those "Johnny come lately" who discovered "Realization" late in life and has to sort of overdo the "enlightenment act" to make up for lost time. There is nothing wrong with that of course and age is never a barrier but Ramesh and his followers often strike me as sincere but spiritual novices who are simply out of their depth. Ramesh alternates between eloquence and nonsense. He reminds me of a student writing a research paper, who sounds wonderful as long as he is quoting or mouthing the ideas of others, but upon striking on his own and trying to say something original gets into trouble with grammar, syntax, coherence, the whole bit. People tip toe around the sayings of teachers like Ramesh considering them "masters" and all that. Well, here in the Sangha, Ramesh is like everyone else. And I am glad when someone like Dan states the obvious. To what Dan said, Ramesh would have absolutely no substantive answer which would not undermine itself. Love Harsha Gregory Goode [goode] Monday, September 10, 2001 1:13 AM ; RE: Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety These were biographical and conventional and passing points I was making, phrased along the terms of Kheyala's question about Suzanne Segal. There was no nondualist's police cap on, no attempt (in that message!) to allay concern over the distinction between this experience and that. There was no attempt to ramp that particular interchange up to a distinctionless pointing, or to use language free from reference to entitification. Just a conversation. Love, --Greg At 09:12 PM 9/9/01 -0400, Harsha wrote: >Dear Dan, > >Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I appreciate your asking the obvious >questions. Your point below is well made. > >"Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave >and not come back could only be evident if >there were someone there who could ascertain >that an "I" left and didn't come back, and >could evaluate someone else whose "I" came >back. Who would this observer be, along >with criteria for judging an "I" that comes >and goes -- if not itself an "I"? > >Love >Harsha > > >d b [dan330033] >Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:29 PM > > Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety > > >Dear Greg, > >I'm a bit perplexed to find you and Ramesh >engaging in the traditional, yet contradictory >distinction between someone who knows *it* and someone >who doesn't know *it*, based on whether or >not there is an experience of anxiety present >(Contradictory in his case because he repeatedly >emphasizes that there is no one there to know or >control "what is as is", and in your case because you >have emphasized that no particular experience >is more 'enlightenment' than another). > >In my perception, this checking to see whether or not >there is anxiety for someone involves a self-conscious > >observer with criteria for evaluating the perceived, >whether that perceived be understood as oneself or >someone else. > >The judging of some kind of "final knowing" >without "fear or desire" that Jean Kline >apparently promoted, seems to depend on evaluating >expressions of anxiety or lack of anxiety >and thus partakes of a subject/object split, the >split forming around conceptualized >criteria of evaluation. > >One concern is that when >expressing no anxiety is given priveledge >over expressing anxiety, we are led >to valuing an emotionally supressive stance >as somehow closer to truth >or reality than an expression of anxiety. >Is not truth simply "what is"? >Why then assume that one expression somehow >reflects "a better understanding" of what is, >if there is not one apart to understand it? > >As you yourself have alluded, if "what is" > is placed at arms' length, all sorts of > mischief follow. Do not criteria based > on whether or not anxiety arises constitute > at least an arm's length? > >With criteria such as "anxiety vs. no anxiety", >is not the world coming to be divided into >those who know and don't know reality, those >who have and don't have the "final understanding", >whatever that is supposed to be, those who >supposedly experience no anxiety and those >who do, those whose "I" has left and those >who have an "I" -- on and on in the >realm of "spiritually-splitting reality" ... > >I know that you have said that the idea of >an experiencing being or person is itself >the limitation that is transcended with >awareness (or words to that effect - correct >me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly). So, >it seems contradictory when you then make >statements that support evaluations of >experiencing beings. > >I suppose one could assume that you are playing >a word-game, and for one who "knows the secret" >that there are no experiencing beings, the >word-game wouldn't apply. Still, does not >the engagement in, and perpetuation of such >word-games, simply reinforce whatever tendencies >one's audience has to construe the world >in a subject-object split? > >It seems to me, Greg, that >your statements here don't mesh >with the logic you used >in the enjoyable paper you referred us >here to read, in which you discussed how *it* >or "enlightenment" >couldn't be assumed to be a particular kind of >experience. (Certainly, the experience and >expression in which there is no anxiety >is a particular kind of experience and expression). > >Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave >and not come back could only be evident if >there were someone there who could ascertain >that an "I" left and didn't come back, and >could evaluate someone else whose "I" came >back. Who would this observer be, along >with criteria for judging an "I" that comes >and goes -- if not itself an "I"? > >It seems to me that if the "I" has gone, >something has gone that never really was. >If so, then there are no criteria to be >maintained for evaluating self or others >(for such self never was, to be evaluated, >nor is here, to maintain criteria), regarding >whether or not an "I" is present, or has >come or gone -- and particularly not to >maintain evaluations that expressions of >anxiety show that something has not been >attained, and that nonexpression of anxiety >is to be presumed to be superior, evidence >of some kind of attainment, final understanding, >or whatever. > >Namaste and love, > >Dan > >>>>Greg: >Yes, I know someone she confided in later in her life. >She basically was reporting fear and confusion, >wondering how that fit in >with what Jean Klein and others had told her about her >experiences. According to what she believed, fear >should have been >impossible, and so should doubt. Jean Klein defines IT >partly as the end of fear and desire. And her fear >wasn't fear of disease >or death, but the cosmic anxiety of the human >condition, plus fear about the rootlessness of this >no-self that had been going on. I >never talked to Ramesh about her story, but I do know >some of the criteria he uses in deciding whether he >thinks people have >"the final understanding," as he calls it. And I think >it might have been her articulation of doubt, and the >coming/going of her >important experiences that made him say, "That's not >it." If the sense of self or of doership leaves and >comes back, after >however so long an absence, Ramesh calls it a >"flip-flop" or "free sample" -- and not yet IT. > >He's right about that - if you *really* go away (that >is, *really* see that you weren't ever there), then >you CAN'T come back. >There'd be nothing left to keep track and establish >that it's the same one who left. So if it seems you >are coming back, then you >never truly left! > > > >Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger >http://im. > > >/join > > > > > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, >perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside >back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than >the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. >Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is >where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal >Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously >arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > >/join > > > > > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Hello Harsha-ji, Sorry in case I wrote anything that makes it look like I go along with Ramesh's teaching! I don't! There was a wonderful point he made for which I have been grateful, and have thanked him for it. But I don't endorse the rest of the teaching. Besides the dialectic, logical and didactic problems with Ramesh's materialist philosophy, there is a more pernicious problem. I've seen it affect people deeply. For example, the time I went to thank him for this point, I saw this problem deeply affect most of the people in the satsang hall. It is this -- the very intense and emotional weight he puts on someone having the "final understanding" or not, while claiming on the surface that it doesn't matter at all. (side note: what he takes to be doership is inconsistent - sometimes he talks about it as a feeling, sometimes as a matter of fact, and the "final understanding" is not final at all, it's just that there is no independent do-er. This fact can't be bottled up and said to have happened to one body-mind and not another... Plus, as a materialistic philosophy, it leaves untouched lots of other dualistic presuppositions that never come up for examination....) The pernicious problem comes in when he celebrates and rejoices at the supposed disappearance of the sense of doership in *certain* body-minds, including his own, while saying in the next paragraph that this doesn't matter. Yes, he said it doesn't matter (he can't say anything is important, or that would betray some kind of "evaluator-entity"). But everything else about the satsang-event and in his attitude and in the room makes it seem of life-shattering importance. It is not helpful, and sets up some real anxiety in the room. It does three things to his followers, who are taking all their cues from him (many people have spoken to me about this feeling): (i) It makes them believe that non-doership is something real that can reside in some places and not others. They don't see that this very belief is a perpetuation of the same thing that brought them to the satsang in the first place. (ii) It makes them *really want it*. The yearning in the room is quite palpable. (iii) And it makes them pretend that they *don't* want it. For to really want it would be to betray doership. So it's a great trap. Besides the deep and subtle and not-so-subtle problems, on an everyday level, it's just this -- just another case of dividing people into "haves" and "have-nots" and treating them differently. I don't go along with this at all, and I'm sorry if anything I said makes it seem like I do. Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Dear Greg, Harsha, and Dan, The heart of my letter asking about Suzanne Segal was mainly this: I felt a strong connection with her as a sister in this sometimes tumultuous illusion we call life and when I had heard she was suffering emotionally in the end of her days, I was saddened. Knowing deeply, (do I really have to say this?) that everything is taking place in and as This Vast Immutable Momentness....whoa... .....I wanted to know, sincerely out of compassion, if she died in peace. I attributed Greg's response, having missed the heart and soul of my letter, as an oversight that one might make if he were e-mailing at 3:30 am after a Saturday night out in a hip town like NYC. He was instantly forgiven! However, I have found the ensuing discussion quite interesting....especially this funny thing we humans do about quibbling over who is It and who ain't. Anyway, I really love you guys. My heart is thumping that right now. Do you feel it too? Love, Kheyala - Gregory Goode ; Sunday, September 09, 2001 10:12 PM RE: Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety These were biographical and conventional and passing points I was making,phrased along the terms of Kheyala's question about Suzanne Segal. Therewas no nondualist's police cap on, no attempt (in that message!) to allayconcern over the distinction between this experience and that. There wasno attempt to ramp that particular interchange up to a distinctionlesspointing, or to use language free from reference to entitification. Just aconversation. Love,--GregAt 09:12 PM 9/9/01 -0400, Harsha wrote:>Dear Dan,>>Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I appreciate your asking the obvious>questions. Your point below is well made.>>"Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave>and not come back could only be evident if>there were someone there who could ascertain>that an "I" left and didn't come back, and>could evaluate someone else whose "I" came>back. Who would this observer be, along>with criteria for judging an "I" that comes>and goes -- if not itself an "I"?>>Love>Harsha>>-----Original Message----->d b [dan330033 ]>Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:29 PM>To: > Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety>>>Dear Greg,>>I'm a bit perplexed to find you and Ramesh>engaging in the traditional, yet contradictory>distinction between someone who knows *it* and someone>who doesn't know *it*, based on whether or>not there is an experience of anxiety present>(Contradictory in his case because he repeatedly>emphasizes that there is no one there to know or>control "what is as is", and in your case because you>have emphasized that no particular experience>is more 'enlightenment' than another).>>In my perception, this checking to see whether or not>there is anxiety for someone involves a self-conscious>>observer with criteria for evaluating the perceived,>whether that perceived be understood as oneself or>someone else.>>The judging of some kind of "final knowing">without "fear or desire" that Jean Kline>apparently promoted, seems to depend on evaluating>expressions of anxiety or lack of anxiety>and thus partakes of a subject/object split, the>split forming around conceptualized>criteria of evaluation.>>One concern is that when>expressing no anxiety is given priveledge>over expressing anxiety, we are led>to valuing an emotionally supressive stance>as somehow closer to truth>or reality than an expression of anxiety.>Is not truth simply "what is"?>Why then assume that one expression somehow>reflects "a better understanding" of what is,>if there is not one apart to understand it?>>As you yourself have alluded, if "what is"> is placed at arms' length, all sorts of> mischief follow. Do not criteria based> on whether or not anxiety arises constitute> at least an arm's length?>>With criteria such as "anxiety vs. no anxiety",>is not the world coming to be divided into>those who know and don't know reality, those>who have and don't have the "final understanding",>whatever that is supposed to be, those who>supposedly experience no anxiety and those>who do, those whose "I" has left and those>who have an "I" -- on and on in the>realm of "spiritually-splitting reality" ...>>I know that you have said that the idea of>an experiencing being or person is itself>the limitation that is transcended with>awareness (or words to that effect - correct>me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly). So,>it seems contradictory when you then make>statements that support evaluations of>experiencing beings.>>I suppose one could assume that you are playing>a word-game, and for one who "knows the secret">that there are no experiencing beings, the>word-game wouldn't apply. Still, does not>the engagement in, and perpetuation of such>word-games, simply reinforce whatever tendencies>one's audience has to construe the world>in a subject-object split?>>It seems to me, Greg, that>your statements here don't mesh>with the logic you used>in the enjoyable paper you referred us>here to read, in which you discussed how *it*>or "enlightenment">couldn't be assumed to be a particular kind of>experience. (Certainly, the experience and>expression in which there is no anxiety>is a particular kind of experience and expression).>>Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave>and not come back could only be evident if>there were someone there who could ascertain>that an "I" left and didn't come back, and>could evaluate someone else whose "I" came>back. Who would this observer be, along>with criteria for judging an "I" that comes>and goes -- if not itself an "I"?>>It seems to me that if the "I" has gone,>something has gone that never really was.>If so, then there are no criteria to be>maintained for evaluating self or others>(for such self never was, to be evaluated,>nor is here, to maintain criteria), regarding>whether or not an "I" is present, or has>come or gone -- and particularly not to>maintain evaluations that expressions of>anxiety show that something has not been>attained, and that nonexpression of anxiety>is to be presumed to be superior, evidence>of some kind of attainment, final understanding,>or whatever.>>Namaste and love,>>Dan>>>>>Greg:>Yes, I know someone she confided in later in her life.>She basically was reporting fear and confusion,>wondering how that fit in>with what Jean Klein and others had told her about her>experiences. According to what she believed, fear>should have been>impossible, and so should doubt. Jean Klein defines IT>partly as the end of fear and desire. And her fear>wasn't fear of disease>or death, but the cosmic anxiety of the human>condition, plus fear about the rootlessness of this>no-self that had been going on. I>never talked to Ramesh about her story, but I do know>some of the criteria he uses in deciding whether he>thinks people have>"the final understanding," as he calls it. And I think>it might have been her articulation of doubt, and the>coming/going of her>important experiences that made him say, "That's not>it." If the sense of self or of doership leaves and>comes back, after>however so long an absence, Ramesh calls it a>"flip-flop" or "free sample" -- and not yet IT.>>He's right about that - if you *really* go away (that>is, *really* see that you weren't ever there), then>you CAN'T come back.>There'd be nothing left to keep track and establish>that it's the same one who left. So if it seems you>are coming back, then you>never truly left!>>>Do You ?>Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger>http://im.>>>/join>> >>>>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,>perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside>back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than>the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.>Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is>where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal>Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously>arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.>>>>Your use of is subject to >>>>>>/join>> >>>>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subsideback into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different thanthe ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature ofAwareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It isHome. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finalityof Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all toa.>> >>Your use of is subject to >>>>/join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Thank you, Greg. I'm sorry too, for any trace of haziness on my part which may have kicked this off. Isn't it amazing---that it only takes one........single........thought.......and Bam! The whole world appears. And then Whoosh! It is gone, leaving only That .................of Grace. Tears are in my eyes, and there is Peace. - Gregory Goode ; Monday, September 10, 2001 8:53 AM Re: Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety I love you too Kheyala! Sorry for the confusion and stuff. I'm not sure whether Suzanne died in peace, but I think she felt better later than she did at the time she spoke to my friend. Love,--GregAt 08:31 AM 9/10/01 -0700, Kheyala wrote: >>>> Dear Greg, Harsha, and Dan,smaller>fontfamily>The heart of my letter asking about Suzanne Segal was mainly this: I felt a strong connection with her as a sister in this sometimes tumultuous illusion we call life and when I had heard she was suffering emotionally in the end of her days, I was saddened. Knowing deeply, (do I really have to say this?) that everything is taking place in and as This Vast Immutable Momentness....whoa... ....I wanted to know, sincerely out of compassion, if she died in peace.smaller>fontfamily>I attributed Greg's response, having missed the heart and soul of my letter, as an oversight that one might make if he were e-mailing at 3:30 am after a Saturday night out in a hip town like NYC. He was instantly forgiven!smaller>fontfamily>However, I have found the ensuing discussion quite interesting....especially this funny thing we humans do about quibbling over who is It and who ain't.smaller>fontfamily>Anyway, I really love you guys.My heart is thumping that right now. Do you feel it too?smaller>fontfamily>Love,Kheyalasmaller>fontfamily><<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Hey, do you guys know this song, "Who's sorry now?" It's an oldie goldie. Maybe we can play it at our next retreat :-) :-) :-). OK. I am happy and feeling good and not sorry at all! :-). Not about this anyway. I loved the dialogue. Thanks Kheyala, Greg, and Dan! You are the best! Who's sorry now? :-). Love Harsha , "Kheyala" <kheyala@n...> wrote: > Thank you, Greg. > I'm sorry too, for any trace of haziness on my part which may have kicked this off. Isn't it amazing---that it only takes one........single........thought.......and Bam! The whole world appears. > And then Whoosh! It is gone, leaving only That .................of Grace. > > > > > Tears are in my eyes, and there is Peace. > > > > - > Gregory Goode > ; > Monday, September 10, 2001 8:53 AM > Re: Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety > > > I love you too Kheyala! Sorry for the confusion and stuff. I'm not sure whether Suzanne died in peace, but I think she felt better later than she did at the time she spoke to my friend. > > Love, > > --Greg > > At 08:31 AM 9/10/01 -0700, Kheyala wrote: > >>>> > > Dear Greg, Harsha, and Dan, > > The heart of my letter asking about Suzanne Segal was mainly this: I felt a strong connection with her as a sister in this sometimes tumultuous illusion we call life and when I had heard she was suffering emotionally in the end of her days, I was saddened. Knowing deeply, (do I really have to say this?) that everything is taking place in and as This Vast Immutable Momentness....whoa... ....I wanted to know, sincerely out of compassion, if she died in peace. > > I attributed Greg's response, having missed the heart and soul of my letter, as an oversight that one might make if he were e- mailing at 3:30 am after a Saturday night out in a hip town like NYC. He was instantly forgiven! > > However, I have found the ensuing discussion quite interesting....especially this funny thing we humans do about quibbling over who is It and who ain't. > > Anyway, I really love you guys. > My heart is thumping that right now. Do you feel it too? > > Love, > Kheyala > > <<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Connie Francis - <harsha-hkl <> Monday, September 10, 2001 1:55 PM Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety > Hey, do you guys know this song, "Who's sorry now?" It's an oldie > goldie. Maybe we can play it at our next retreat :-) :-) :-). > > OK. I am happy and feeling good and not sorry at all! :-). Not about > this anyway. I loved the dialogue. > > Thanks Kheyala, Greg, and Dan! You are the best! > > Who's sorry now? :-). > > Love > Harsha > > > , "Kheyala" <kheyala@n...> wrote: > > Thank you, Greg. > > I'm sorry too, for any trace of haziness on my part which may have > kicked this off. Isn't it amazing---that it only takes > one........single........thought.......and Bam! The whole world > appears. > > And then Whoosh! It is gone, leaving only That .................of > Grace. > > > > > > > > > > Tears are in my eyes, and there is Peace. > > > > > > > > - > > Gregory Goode > > ; > > Monday, September 10, 2001 8:53 AM > > Re: Re: Suzanne Segal / the experience > of anxiety > > > > > > I love you too Kheyala! Sorry for the confusion and stuff. I'm > not sure whether Suzanne died in peace, but I think she felt better > later than she did at the time she spoke to my friend. > > > > Love, > > > > --Greg > > > > At 08:31 AM 9/10/01 -0700, Kheyala wrote: > > >>>> > > > > Dear Greg, Harsha, and Dan, > > > > The heart of my letter asking about Suzanne Segal was mainly > this: I felt a strong connection with her as a sister in this > sometimes tumultuous illusion we call life and when I had heard she > was suffering emotionally in the end of her days, I was saddened. > Knowing deeply, (do I really have to say this?) that everything is > taking place in and as This Vast Immutable > Momentness....whoa... ....I wanted to know, sincerely out of > compassion, if she died in peace. > > > > I attributed Greg's response, having missed the heart and soul > of my letter, as an oversight that one might make if he were e- > mailing at 3:30 am after a Saturday night out in a hip town like > NYC. He was instantly forgiven! > > > > However, I have found the ensuing discussion quite > interesting....especially this funny thing we humans do about > quibbling over who is It and who ain't. > > > > Anyway, I really love you guys. > > My heart is thumping that right now. Do you feel it too? > > > > Love, > > Kheyala > > > > <<<< > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 , Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > > So it's a great trap. Besides the deep and subtle and not-so-subtle > problems, on an everyday level, it's just this -- just another case of > dividing people into "haves" and "have-nots" and treating them differently. > I don't go along with this at all, and I'm sorry if anything I said makes > it seem like I do. Hi Gregji... It was obvious to me that you were quoting to answer a question asked and not taking it on as your truth. What you quoted felt off to me too, but I couldn't pinpoint what it was. I was happy to read Dan's, Harsha's, and your posts to help me understand it further. You guys are great! I'm so much enjoying all the wonderful stories... keep 'em coming. Love, xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 xxxtg, Thanks :-) --Greg At 08:39 PM 9/10/01 -0000, leteegee wrote: >Hi Gregji... > >It was obvious to me that you were quoting to answer a question asked >and not taking it on as your truth. What you quoted felt off to me >too, but I couldn't pinpoint what it was. I was happy to read >Dan's, Harsha's, and your posts to help me understand it further. >You guys are great! > >I'm so much enjoying all the wonderful stories... keep 'em coming. > >Love, >xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Hi Greg! Of course it was just a conversation, as is this. And the conversation to which we refer was about having a final understanding, and about those who have "it" and thus don't have anxiety, and included a judgment about Suzanne Segal not having it. I wouldn't think that raising a question about those concepts (which might well be considered "nondual assumptions" or even "nondual evaluations") involves donning a nondual police cap. Quite the contrary. It's just a question raised by an ordinary person. If anything, a person who doesn't feel affection for nondual evaluations, nor nondual police. No desire here to ramp anything up, seek distinctionless pointing, nor suggest trying to use language free from entification. I cited your article because I enjoyed it, not to make it some kind of guideline for correct ways to talk. In fact, the article, in its way, seemed to raise questions about "nondual evaluations" such as people who have it and don't have it, etc. Am I incorrect in seeing it this way? At any rate, I raise my questions out of love and respect for what you've shared here, Greg. Blessed be, Dan --- Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > These were biographical and conventional and passing > points I was making, > phrased along the terms of Kheyala's question about > Suzanne Segal. There > was no nondualist's police cap on, no attempt (in > that message!) to allay > concern over the distinction between this experience > and that. There was > no attempt to ramp that particular interchange up to > a distinctionless > pointing, or to use language free from reference to > entitification. Just a > conversation. > > Love, > > --Greg Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Dear Harsha -- Namaste. I'm glad if it seems I've pointed to something obvious. I raise a question of evaluations made of others' (or one's own) level of understanding based on assumptions that one can detect if the other (or oneself, which is the same thing) has an I, doesn't have an I, has a final understanding, has no anxiety and so on. Whenever Ramesh, or anyone else, makes such statements, there is a contradiction involved in the assumption that one's own "I" isn't there as one makes judgments about another's "I" being or not being there. And if such claims about others, or oneself, are contradictory and can't be substantiated, then the claims and assumptions can be laid to rest. And laying such to rest may be opening to a world in which "self" and "other" aren't opposed by the distance formed by evaluation. Meanwhile, we have to find a way to make peace with the world the way we humans have made it: a world of incessant evaluations of self and others (whether in the worlds of business, spirituality, or counseling)! Resting in peace, Obvious Dan >Harsha: (snip) > And I am glad when someone like Dan states the > obvious. > > To what Dan said, Ramesh would have absolutely no > substantive answer which > would not undermine itself. > > Love > Harsha > >Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave > >and not come back could only be evident if > >there were someone there who could ascertain > >that an "I" left and didn't come back, and > >could evaluate someone else whose "I" came > >back. Who would this observer be, along > >with criteria for judging an "I" that comes > >and goes -- if not itself an "I"? > > > >It seems to me that if the "I" has gone, > >something has gone that never really was. > >If so, then there are no criteria to be > >maintained for evaluating self or others > >(for such self never was, to be evaluated, > === message truncated === Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Dear Dan, Beautifully stated below Dan. Here are some thoughts. To state the obvious sometimes takes courage, especially when those being questioned are considered "authorities". I love your independence in doing so. It is obvious to me that in living life, judgments and evaluations have to be made about situations, people, "spiritual teachers" etc. What leads us to form those judgments is another questions but such judgments are made. It seems to me that our personalities are attracted to some people, things, and situations and not so to others. I find certain spiritual teachers and teachings "unattractive" and even offensive at times and others more "attractive". I don't wish to or need to pretend otherwise. The nature of consciousness itself is Self-attraction. So it is natural that we are attracted to that which we value in ourselves. We seek satisfaction and pleasure through joining others in conscious or unconscious relationships of various types. Husband - Wife, Parent - Child, Guru - Disciple, Friend - Friend, etc. I don't mind being attracted to some people or some teachings and not so to others. Dan, I wanted to comment on something in an earlier post of yours as well. You had stated: "I sense a difference in tone between one who is simply being aware, and one who is seeking to gain others' attention, following, admiration, adoration. And, many tricksters as well as charistmatic teachers, leaders, speakers and writers fall into that category." Peace, Dan I agree with you Dan. However, consider that the nature of attraction is built into the fabric of the Universe. The earth and the planets are able to go around the sun in a relatively smooth orbit because of the law of attraction to some center of gravity. Have you seen a family gathered around a little baby girl or baby boy. Parents, Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins all giving their utmost attention, adoration, admiration. Gently massaging her feet, looking into her eyes. The mere fact of existence of this baby draws attention, adoration, admiration, etc., even though the baby does not seek it. Sometimes, it is the element of innocence, lack of self consciousness, and overwhelming beauty of life whether of a baby or a sage that calls forth admiration and adoration. Some of my best moments have been in adoration of others. If a trickster and charismatic teachers can call forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If the motive for the adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated with the beauty he or she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a trickster or a just a charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. Love to all Harsha d b [dan330033] Monday, September 10, 2001 7:25 PM RE: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety Dear Harsha -- Namaste. I'm glad if it seems I've pointed to something obvious. I raise a question of evaluations made of others' (or one's own) level of understanding based on assumptions that one can detect if the other (or oneself, which is the same thing) has an I, doesn't have an I, has a final understanding, has no anxiety and so on. Whenever Ramesh, or anyone else, makes such statements, there is a contradiction involved in the assumption that one's own "I" isn't there as one makes judgments about another's "I" being or not being there. And if such claims about others, or oneself, are contradictory and can't be substantiated, then the claims and assumptions can be laid to rest. And laying such to rest may be opening to a world in which "self" and "other" aren't opposed by the distance formed by evaluation. Meanwhile, we have to find a way to make peace with the world the way we humans have made it: a world of incessant evaluations of self and others (whether in the worlds of business, spirituality, or counseling)! Resting in peace, Obvious Dan >Harsha: (snip) > And I am glad when someone like Dan states the > obvious. > > To what Dan said, Ramesh would have absolutely no > substantive answer which > would not undermine itself. > > Love > Harsha > >Further, the concept of an "I" who can leave > >and not come back could only be evident if > >there were someone there who could ascertain > >that an "I" left and didn't come back, and > >could evaluate someone else whose "I" came > >back. Who would this observer be, along > >with criteria for judging an "I" that comes > >and goes -- if not itself an "I"? > > > >It seems to me that if the "I" has gone, > >something has gone that never really was. > >If so, then there are no criteria to be > >maintained for evaluating self or others > >(for such self never was, to be evaluated, > === message truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2001 Report Share Posted September 11, 2001 Harsha: > If a trickster and charismatic teachers can call forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If the motive for the adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated with the beauty he or she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a trickster or a just a charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. Beautiful Harsha... thank you... Mira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2001 Report Share Posted September 11, 2001 Mirror [mirror.reflections] Tuesday, September 11, 2001 7:40 AM RE: Suzanne Segal / the experience of anxiety Harsha: > If a trickster and charismatic teachers can call forth that type of adoration as well, so be it. If the motive for the adoration is pure, the one who adores gets saturated with the beauty he or she perceives in the "guru" even though it may be a trickster or a just a charismatic teacher. That is how it seems to me. Beautiful Harsha... thank you... Mira *************************************** Hey, I am just glad you made it to the end of the post Mira! Every time I see your name on the screen, it reminds me that I should post more poetry but after reading yours and Mark's, I have started to feel shy. I need to take a class or something! Most things I write rhyme to the bitter end. I could write pepsi commercials! :-). Welcome back TG. Hope all is well. Just headed out the door. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.